0
Click here for judgemnt

Merely claiming that he is not tenant of the plaintiff would not constitute a ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act of 1961- Chhattisgarh High Court

For ground under   Section   12(1)(c)   of the   Act of   1961, the title must be specifically denied by the   Respondent, which is detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff, then only ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is made out. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal adjudicating in the matter of Shivprasad Tiwari v. Banshilal Sablok(Second Appeal No.293 of 2006) dealt with an issue of whether to set aside judgment passed by the lower courts.

In the present case, the Appellant preferred a second appeal claiming that the Respondent is his tenant and the judgment and decree passed under   Section   12(i)(a)   &   (c)   of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 should be set aside.

The plaintiff’s mother purchased a property and constructed a shop over there and let out such shop to the Respondent (died during the pendency of the second appeal) for a monthly rent of Rs.500/- for non-residential purpose and after the death of the plaintiff’s mother, he became the landowner of the suit accommodation. Plaintiff further stated that the Respondent is not paying rent for the last 3 years for which he was served legal notice. The Respondent did reply to legal notice but neither paid the rent and denied the plaintiff’s title and thereby he is entitled to a decree u/s 12(1) (a) &(c) of the   Chhattisgarh   Accommodation   Control   Act, 1961.

The Respondent in his written statement denied the averments made by Plaintiff and stated he was not the tenant of Plaintiff. The Respondent in his reply to the legal notice stated that the plaintiff is not the landlord of the suit accommodation.

The plaintiff submitted that both courts below have committed legal error in holding that relationship of landlord and tenant is not established between the plaintiff and the Respondent. The court has ignored the testimonies of the witnesses, where they clearly admitted that the suit accommodation was let-­out   by the plaintiff’s mother to the Respondent, and hence the findings recorded by the two courts below are liable to be dismissed. Also, it was further submitted that u/s-12(1) (a) & (c) of the   Chhattisgarh   Accommodation   Control   Act, 1961. it is clearly established that the plaintiff’s mother purchased the suit land and after the death of his mother, the plaintiff has succeeded the suit property,   as such,   finding recorded by two   Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Respondent is not established is perverse and is hereby set-aside.

The court after minute consideration of both the parties, it is clearly established that the plaintiff’s mother purchased the suit land and after the death of his mother, the plaintiff has succeeded the suit property,   as such,   finding recorded by two   Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Respondent is not established is perverse and is hereby set­aside. Also, it is clearly established that the plaintiff’s mother purchased the suit land and after the death of his mother, the plaintiff has succeeded the suit property, as such, finding recorded by two   Courts below that relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the Respondent is not established is perverse and is hereby set-aside.

Also, the court stated that the Respondent has not denied the title of the plaintiff specifically. Merely claiming that he is not a tenant of the plaintiff would not constitute a ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961. For ground under   Section   12(1)(c)   of the   Act of   1961, title must   be specifically denied by the   Respondent, which is detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff, then only ground under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 is made out and simple and vague denial of the plaintiff’s title,   if   any,   would   not   constitute   a ground   under   Section   12(1)(c)   of   the   Act   of   1961, therefore,   the   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   for   decree under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act of 1961.

In the present case the arrears of rent  has not been paid to the plaintiff on the premises that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, as such, since it has already been held that relationship between   the   plaintiff   and   the   Respondent   as   landlord and   tenant   is   established   and   despite   service   of notice (Ex.P­3) to the Respondent he has not tendered arrears   of   rent   within   two   months   from   the   date   of notice   (Ex.P­1),   the   plaintiff   would   be   entitled   to decree under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961. Both the   substantial   questions   of   law   are   answered   in favour of the plaintiff and against the Respondent.

Finally the court relied upon Satish Chandra v. Jankiprasad and considered Section 12(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 and held that it is not necessary to mention in the demand notice the period within which arrears to be paid, and even if period less than two months is mentioned, the demand notice shall not become invalid.

The appeal is partly allowed and the judgment   and   decree   of   both   the   Courts   below   are hereby set aside and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of   the   Act   of   1961   and   it   is   directed   that   the Respondent   will   hand   over   the   peaceful   vacant possession   of   the   suit   accommodation.

Click here for the Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat